Re: [Crm-sig] P90 etc.

On 9 March 2018 at 04:39, Martin Doerr wrote: > > > I recommend NOT to recommend rdf:value, because RDFS 1.1 defines: > "5.4.3 rdf:value rdf:value is an instance of rdf:Property > that may be used in > describing structured values. rdf:value has no

[Crm-sig] Properties of properties in RDF

On 8 March 2018 at 18:02, Richard Light wrote: > I was thinking last night that maybe we should focus our RDF efforts on > exactly this issue: the representation of the CRM primitive classes E60, > E61 and E62 in RDF. The current RDF document is becoming quite > wide-ranging in its scope, and (f

Re: [Crm-sig] Properties of properties in RDF

-Original Message- From: Conal Tuohy List-Post: crm-sig@ics.forth.gr Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:49:53 +1000 > We could then say that > concert performance X was P14a_performed_in Performance Z; that Performance > Z was P14b_carried_out_by person Y, and that Performance Z was > P14.1_in_t

Re: [Crm-sig] Properties of properties in RDF

Dear All, Please see:http://www.cidoc-crm.org/sites/default/files/CRMpc_v1.1_0.rdfs on page http://www.cidoc-crm.org/versions-of-the-cidoc-crm, plus the issues discussing the solution for version 6.2 (I'll look for all references). Best, martin On 3/14/2018 12:49 PM, Conal Tuohy wrote: